Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday November 07, 2013 @12:21PM
from the just-a-little-nazi-themed-orgy-your-honor dept.

Virtucon writes "This one goes to the old adage 'closing the stable door after the horse bolted.' A French court on Wednesday ruled that Google must remove from its search results photos of a former Formula One racing chief, Max Mosley, participating in an Nazi-themed orgy. Google could be fined up to 1,000 Euros/day for not complying. What's strange here is that Mosley A) Sued in a French Court B) Didn't go after anybody else other than Google and C) has definitely strange tastes in extracurricular activities. In this day and age it's laughable to think that once your private photos/videos hit the Internet that you have any expectation of reining them in or filtering the embarrassing parts out. Google isn't the only game in town so to speak in terms of Internet search. I wonder if his lawyers checked out Yahoo or WebCrawler?"

Google not in France Not obligated to do shit for the Frogs Court orders, Just ignore them.

Google does have a French subsidiary, which places them under French jurisdiction. A bigger problem is the fact that Google has been ordered to block the images worldwide. Whether France has the authority to do that or not, I have no idea.

Another reason is reactionary, "Yanks go home" anti-Americanism. It sells, gives politicians the ability to stay in office, and keeps the populace distracted. Were this a French search engine, none of this would have taken place. However, France (and oftentimes the EU in general) will drag a US company on the carpet because it is good PR for them as opposed to keeping their own house clean.

Ones freedom is often someones else oppression.Making laws and rules for a free society are extremely difficult and rarely perfect.We want the press to be free, but we want our information to be private, however if our neighbor is up to something we want to know.After an act of terrorism we get all up an arms because the government didn't collect and connect the information of the plot. However we also don't want the government spying on personal lives, and making these connections.The best we can do is try

In TFA, it says that Moseley won $96,000 in a lawsuit against the infamous News of the World who published the photos. Not that I agree the decision is correct against Google, but the summary is a little lacking.

Here my understanding of the story. The News sensationalized the pictures by outright lying about the Nazi theme. Moseley sued and won. He wants all the embarrassing photos removed from the internet including Google. Like I said, I don't particularly agree with the decision but the summary made it seem like it was a personal vendetta against Google.

One has to admit that they are an important part of the Internet infrastructure. Billions and Billions of dollars of commerce are generated by Google searches for companies that have little or no direct contact with Google. Every time a government does this, Google should shut that country off until the various entities that DEPEND on the free exchange of information complain and withhold campaign contributions/bribes.

One has to admit that they are an important part of the Internet infrastructure. Billions and Billions of dollars of commerce are generated by Google searches for companies that have little or no direct contact with Google. Every time a government does this, Google should shut that country off until the various entities that DEPEND on the free exchange of information complain and withhold campaign contributions/bribes.

If, of course, Bing were usable in any way. Bing is terrible. Bing makes it clear that Microsoft is on its way out as a dictator of the market. Besides capitalizing on the dumb luck of becoming the dominant OS company in the 1980s. It is simply amazing to me how long they were able to keep that going.

Instead of some mild and uninteresting pictures, when you search for "Max Mosley", you now get hits about something involving Max Moseley, five female prostitutes, and a Nazi S&M sex orgy. Way to go!

And you learn that he is the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists, and looking like he stepped out of Monty Python sketch. (I'm assuming "Sir" is not merely an S&M title, but I suppose you can't be sure at this point.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

If he can defeat Google in open court, he can use the case as a precedent to defeat anyone. This is the brave litigant's version of "choose a good target". Cowardly litigants start with the person who has the worst chance of defending themselves, but if they cave, its doesn't set a precedent.

Certainly if he believes it must be technologically possible for Google to do, then he should be able to supply them with an algorithm which accomplishes the desired ends.

Google is the expert here... if they are saying that a problem is not tractable for them to manage, there's a pretty good chance that they are right. It should be up to those who would dispute that position to prove that Google is wrong.

Sure and if he wants to supply the list of urls that should be taken out of search results that would be relevant. But that isn't what is being asked and hence isn't relevant. That is what they have been doing, but apparently Mosley is tired of playing whack-a-mole, for example: http://www.chillingeffects.org/courtorder/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1259783 [chillingeffects.org]

I guess it's 365,000 euros a year for France - just put up the picture on a a different url each day and have it show up in a google search and send google the bil

The whole point of the court cases has been it was not a Nazi themed orgy. The newspapers and the prostitutes just made that bit up to sell papers. In fact it has been proven it court that it was merely an Englishman going to a brothel to be beaten by dominatrix prostitutes and his right to do so privately has now been upheld by the French courts.

Somehow I doubt that anyone on Slashdot is offended by the notion of a Nazi-themed orgy. The Internet generation doesn't get shocked very easily anymore. Goatse, Tubgirl, NumberGenderNumberContainer videos, and half the memes ever created are far more offensive than some people having a role-playing orgy behind closed doors.

The very nature of the net is such that no nation should be allowed to demand anything at all concerning content. France is a fine nation but the notion that they can have any voice in that which is displayed world wide is absurd. Obviously different groups of people have vastly different morals and beliefs. What the net does is give everyone the ability to be offended half out of their minds. What may be considered a savage crime in one place or an act of perversion in another place is perfectly acceptable in other places. Frankly I do not want any nation having any ability to censor the net. It is up to all of us to step up to the plate and be willing to be shocked, mortified, enraged or degraded in order to maintain freedom. Free people should not vote to restrain the freedom of others.

A central reason that Mosley won the original privacy case in the High Court in London is that the judge rejected News Group Newspapers' claim that it was a "Nazi" scenario because they were speaking German (see paragraph 72 of the judgment [bbc.co.uk]). The judge found that there was no reason to think the orgy was Nazi-themed, and therefore there was no public interest to justify the privacy violation.

I was just thinking the same thing. By all this media attention on the fact he wants to remove those photos, he's essentially creating the Streisand effect. I wouldn't be surprised if my this time next week there's 10000x more references to those photo's online.

It also doesn't help his case that he's the son of a noted British fascist leader [wikipedia.org]. Dressing up like a Nazi to get your rocks off when your dad was a Mussolini-loving totalitarian probably isn't a good idea, no matter how much hush money you think you can put up to keep it quiet. Interesting though that the FIA is based in France, I wonder if the courts had any incentive to rule in his favor eh?

He was engaging in private consensual acts that harmed no one and are nobody elses business. For that he was crucified in British tabloids to the point where he had to battle in courts and in media for months just in order to keep his job. I believe he won the court case and got quite a tidy sum from News of the World and in revenge he helped bankroll the court expenses of claimants in the phone tapping case against the paper which finally killed it. IMHO fair play to him. Going after google is a bit ridicu

He was engaging in private consensual acts that harmed no one and are nobody elses business. For that he was crucified in British tabloids to the point where he had to battle in courts and in media for months just in order to keep his job. I believe he won the court case and got quite a tidy sum from News of the World and in revenge he helped bankroll the court expenses of claimants in the phone tapping case against the paper which finally killed it. IMHO fair play to him. Going after google is a bit ridiculous though but not as ridiculous as the French law that apparently allowed him to win the case.

I completely agree, he hurt nobody but himself and I agree privacy should be protected. He won his case against that rat infested, mercifully now passed, den of knuckle-dragging imbeciles that was The News of the World and that was the right decision. As a private citizen he can do whatever he likes so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others as far as I'm concerned. There comes a point, however, when the cat's out of the bag and no matter how much money or power you have (or think you have) you're n

erm, he isn't putting any money up - he's sued all those newspapers and made more cash than a nazi war criminal's swiss bank account!

And now, I guess he's spent it all so.. its off to the courts to say how dreadful these images and videos are still on the internet and unless Google (or whoever) pulls them off, he'll receive another Â£1000 per day.

Frankly, for the amount of cash he screwed out of the papers, I'd let some fat german chick whip me.

erm, he isn't putting any money up - he's sued all those newspapers and made more cash than a nazi war criminal's swiss bank account!

And now, I guess he's spent it all so.. its off to the courts to say how dreadful these images and videos are still on the internet and unless Google (or whoever) pulls them off, he'll receive another Â£1000 per day.

Frankly, for the amount of cash he screwed out of the papers, I'd let some fat german chick whip me.

Clumsy wording on my part, I consider spending a buttload of money on a legal case to suppress information that's out in public a sort of indirect use of hush money. I suspect that the option several people have already suggested will have to suffice, provide a message to all users originating searches from French IP blocks. If the French courts think they can compel Google to enact this on a global level, they're dreaming however.

Find a copy of the front page of the News Of The World that made the original allegations, and look at the first three words of the sentence printed at the bottom of the page. Then look into his aunt Unity's movements during the year before he was born. More than a co-incidence?

I'm bored with the standard silicone babe blowing the guy with the 14" appendage then he eats her then they do doggy, legs in the air and spoon positions in some order then he pulls out, she hits her knees with mouth open and he jacks off on her face and tongue. It was cool the first 5000 times or so but now leaves me flacid.

It's hard to use something that has been on the front page of newspapers as blackmail material. "Oh no, if I don't do what you say you'll publish this information that was on the front page of the paper? Oh anything but that! What if someone finds out?"